How to shut down the "reasonable restrictions" arguments

This is a discussion on How to shut down the "reasonable restrictions" arguments within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Need a few quick ones that will shut down in a liberal, as well as a few for a few longer winded debates to try ...

Don't fight liberals, we always win......But on guns we're wrong so Id say compare the argument for legalizing drugs (The drug doesn't commit crimes the drug user commits them so punishing people who do drugs but don't commit other crimes makes no sense.) to keeping guns.

First; liberals are rarely "on the fence." Liberals believe all fences need to be taken down so your fellow man can also enjoy (share the wealth) what you have worked for.

Those who are actually on the fence with this issue, can be won over, but it takes time and logic. Another reason liberals can't be swayed as "logic" is not in their vocabulary nor do they practice it.

Don't fight liberals, we always win......But on guns we're wrong so Id say compare the argument for legalizing drugs (The drug doesn't commit crimes the drug user commits them so punishing people who do drugs but don't commit other crimes makes no sense.) to keeping guns.

Good thought on turning the tables. However, the liberals I've come across don't win, people just walk away from their yelling of irrational drivel.

How to shut down the "reasonable restrictions" arguments

Some of you really need to hold up a mirror and take a really long look into it!
Do you think that your name calling, labeling, and attempts to belittle others helps the pro gun rights cause in any way? It doesn't and quite frankly, I've seen a lot of behavior and talk from pompous Conservatives that is downright disgusting. Do us all a favor and keep your liberal bashing to yourself.

I personally like to list off all of the current laws, requirements for ownership, talk about the restrictions on full auto and supressed weapons, etc.

Start off by saying "here is what I think the laws should be" go through that list, and then look around at all the morons nodding in agreement. They dont actually know about any firearms laws, most will be shocked when you follow up by saying "im glad you all agree, since those are the current laws".

You get the 5th justice to change the meaning of the 2nd and all arguments are over.
You do as some on one political side do when you use words like reasonable and fair or right you get in their face as say over and over . Reasonable you tell me what is reasonable, fair, right tell me who are you to make that call. Followed by rolling your eyes back and and statements like there it is the word reasonable.
You can not ague it with them they will not hear reason they are not interested.
Every gun forum has plants in it they are there to go along but every once in a while bring up the we can all agree no, one needs------. They are often the first to point out something done with a weapon that is plain wrong.Then they back off they are the seed planters they appear to be mostly pro 2nd but they are there to undermined to weaken. They are trained at it. I know I use to sit at the meetings.

There is no "one-liner" to shut down somebody who is either on the fence or completely against using a firearm for self-defense. I started a thread about the article below a few weeks ago. Basically, there are two main reasons someone opposes using firearms in self-defense. They either have an irrational fear of guns, or they are against using any type of force in any situation.

The problem is, the "reasonable" argument starts with the bias that any disagreement is unreasonable. So, you're already behind the curve on any such discussion.

IMO, the way through is via simple, undeniable, can't-ignore logic that appeals to the person in question. That person's got to see how the given restriction either (a) fails to protect anyone and (b) fails to actually achieve the goals it seeks. Tough criteria, when "all" that's being suggested is training, or time delays, or limits on round counts, or limits on number of purchases in a time frame, or whatever. Reality is, it's not the violent felons who are making such documentable/restrictable purchases, going through such introductory training, applying for CHL's. In the end, it's basically the upstanding citizen who pays for these things, infringed upon the right to own and carry arms, while the felons continue to acquire their weaponry via other means.